Evidence in a religious forum

we is humans and evil is immoral

And what is our standard for morality? Without an agreed upon subjective standard we cannot make objective statements about morality.

And what is our standard for morality? Without an agreed upon subjective standard we cannot make objective statements about morality.

Says who? It sounds like you are making an objective statement? Or is that really just a subjective statement you are making? If it is the first, then what is objective standard you are basing it on. And if the latter, then aren't you really just giving people permission to abuse other people? 

It is objectively true that without some standard we agree upon then no objective statements about morality are possible.

It is also objectively true that some god(s) existing does not necessitate any objective standard unless the standards of said god could be the demonstrated to be more than subjective opinion.

Respectfully, how can anything be objectively true until we have agreed to an objective  standard?

if the Biblical God exists

Immaterial unless the Yahweh can be demonstrated through testable, repeatable and reliable methods. Preferably in such a way that it was confirmed by multiple examples of evidence by independent parties. 

Another subjective statement by you.  I accept that is your preferred way to confirm anything. Yet it is not everyone's.  

And besides if the Bible God existed he would refuse to be put under a microscope just to satisfy your preferences.. 

and to be honest, if he chose to put himself under such a microscope I would reject him as God. 

Another subjective statement by you.  I accept that is your preferred way to confirm anything. Yet it is not everyone's.  

And besides if the Bible God existed he would refuse to be put under a microscope just to satisfy your preferences.. 

and to be honest, if he chose to put himself under such a microscope I would reject him as God. 

You have constructed an unfalsifiable premise. Such premises deserve to be dismissed out of hand.

Dismiss it if you like.  But it is an absurdity to suggest that GOD can be put under a microscope. And demonstrates that you have no idea what you are suggesting. 

Dismiss it if you like.  But it is an absurdity to suggest that GOD can be put under a microscope. And demonstrates that you have no idea what you are suggesting. 

(IF) whatever god(s) you are suggesting cannot be investigated (THEN) any statements made about whatever god(s) you are suggesting becomes necessarily an argument from ignorance. 

Different claims would require different levels of evidence. That some human was guilty of wrongdoing is not going to require the same evidence to convince me as some supernatural claim because I know humans exist and that they are sometimes guilty of wrongdoing. You don't have to first demonstrate that humans and wrongdoing are even non fictitious. The more extraordinary a claim the less believable it just be considered. 

You are missing the point. Some biblical claims can be investigated scientifically and those if they happened somehow managed to leave not a shred of evidence for (in the case of the arc story) the huge landscape changing event it describes.

Those that cannot I really don't know a way to investigate. All religions make faith based claims of revealed knowledge.

I'm not sure how you would ever demonstrate any god(s) but in order to prove yours was any different than all the other proposed gods whom we agree are most likely not real you would have to first show a different kind of evidence than faith based claims, anecdotal evidence, an old book, logically flawed arguments and arguments with unsupportable premises because lots of religions have those and you haven't explained why I shouldn't believe in some non Christian religion. 

I'm prepared to embrace the worst case scenario. Pastafarianism.

Yes a joke religion that even its followers admit are not to be taken as truth. Nevertheless can you conclusively prove in any way that some pasta monster of some kind did not reach out its noodily appendages and inspire the authors of the religion to present the actual truth of the universe and its creator just for fun?

This sounds easier than it actually is. The standard you have set is that you must have faith in order to have the truth come into you and that your answer is sufficient to explain reality. Can you say you have tried sincerely to seek the pasta monster? And if not how can you say he isn't real? His noodly appendage quivers for you and only a powerful timeless spaceless eternal being could have made the universe. The fsm checks off all those boxes by definition. Do you see how absurd this all sounds? 

There are billions of fossils buried in rock layers throughout the world. 

Do you think your worldview, devoid of God is more reasonable? 

For instance, what other religious view has so much prophecy involved,

what is reasonable about such a belief - Pastafarianism? 

 I say if it is Pastafariainism it is blind and irrational. 

 I agree 100% with the Bible, but don't believe a homosexual should be put to death. 

These two statements are in fundamental conflict. 

Why should I care what you consider a sin? I'm not talking about sin I'm talking about morality and I don't see any moral issues in and of itself with consenting adults engaging in sexual activity.

These two statements are in fundamental conflict. 

You also seem to be implying that god could not simply put an injunction  against owning people because owning people was such a popular and wide spread practice even though he was able to put injunctions on other activities that were popular and widespread that are not as clearly immoral like eating shellfish or making statues to represent some god(s).

Perhaps I am misunderstanding.are you not arguing that the Yahweh is morally perfect by nature and if he does something that appears immoral to us there must by necessity be a good moral reason for the apparent flaw? That our understanding is the problem not the Yahweh?

I am merely explaining the difference between an "atheist regime" (which is a nonsensical term) and a regime that happens to promote atheism because you brought up atheist regimes. The fundamental difference between a regime that promotes atheism and a theocracy is that nothing is being done in the name of atheism. Atheism itself is not informing actions the political ends of the nation do and they must be justified on their own merits even in those cases where horrific injustices are committed the reasoning is never "well there's no god(s) so we may as well". In a theocracy

(or even any political ideology that is strongly tied to a monarchy such as the spanish monarchy in the 1600s) by

contrast things are done "in the name of god(s)" with no further justification (although it may or may not be the case that the political leaders involved actually believed that they were acting in the name of some god(s)).

If you can recognize the difference and if you are of the opinion that some of the world's many many religions (presumably you consider every religion but one to be false and likely consider many denominations of your own religion to be false) then we can discuss whether the holding of false religions can be harmful and if we are in agreement that false religions are harmful then you should by logical extension understand my concern about belief in christianity

unless it can somehow meet some reasonable burden of proof. Especially if it would inform your behavior in ways that would limit the liberties of others. For example if someone voted against gay marriage because they considered it a "sin" or voting for an observable less moral political candidate in order to avoid voting for someone who has a different spiritual ideology (or indeed none at all). 

I want to be very clear I am not accusing you of anything I have mentioned above but I have observed arguments from Christians trying to justify christian beliefs informing actions. That coupled with manifest Destiny being A) observably an immoral idea and B) that it was not a true biblical command but was justified by the white Christian belief that white Christians should by divine providence own the world. The long and the short of it it almost doesn't matter what the bible says or if it is fiction or not. It has observably caused harm in reality. You could claim that this was not the will of the Yahweh but the fault of human immorality and I would agree. What we would disagree on is whether or not anything at all is the will of any god(s).

Do you think a homosexual would be any different than the woman caught in adultery? 

Do you feel that 2 consenting adults committing adultery is moral?

What would you say to this person?

You seem to be assuming that I've read something that appeared to be immoral.

Some quotes from theocrats that shows what you mean.

Tell me how you know that out of all the communists that ever existed, none of them ever said, whether vocally or in their mind, "well there's no god(s) so we may as well".

For one, no, I don't think many denominations within Christianity are false.

As far as voting, I would vote for who I thought to be the best candidate. The one who will do the best job. I don't care about their sexual preference as long as there's no related agenda that I would consider immoral, or a violation of freedom.

As far as voting against gay marriage. Well, if it's on the ballot, it's not a religious issue. None of our laws are based on religion. Not even the Blue Laws. Therefore, any voter has the absolute right to check whatever box they wish.....in private.

And once Darwinian evolution came on the scene, a number of white bigots saw this as scientific proofthat whites are superior to other races.

Yes because adultery is a separate issue. Two homosexuals engaged in a monogamous relationship are not guilty of adultery so even if you can say what they are guilty of you are falsely conflating something which does not cause harm with something that can (and for now at least we will forgo any discussion of open relationships and other forms of polyamory).

So what's the difference?

Adultery is like murder it is defenitionally wrong in that it involves betraying a partner who has trust in you. Unless you wish to include other activities under the umbrella of "adultery" (and for now at least we will forgo any discussion of open relationships and other forms of polyamory) then no I do not. 

I have read something that appeared to me to be immoral (multiple genocides). Is your claim that I must by necessity be mistaken in regarding multiple genocides as immoral because god is morally correct by definition and by extension any genocide he committed must also be morally correct? 

I suppose I can't be 100% certain in the same way I cannot be 100% certain that my senses reflect reality and not just some grand illusion or complicated simulation but I strongly suspect and I will tell you why. Because humans tend to do things for a reason not because some particular reason doesn't seem to be in evidence. I also doubt anyone said "there is no big foot so we may as well camp here". If however you

can find some event quote or evidence to the contrary I will be happy to admit my fault I'm this regard.

Perhaps many is the wrong word but some. Also I think that some denominations consider all other denominations to be false and you disagree with them by default.

Are you saying you do not regard the rejection of jesus christ as a personal savior is immoral? Because otherwise you have drawn yourself quite a loophole.

I don't care if it is s religios issue if your vote is being informed by your religios beliefs.

Do you know what that made them? Wrong about what the science was actually claiming and could support. For one thing superior is a nonsensical term unless it applies to some goal and evolution guided by the process of natural selection doesn't actually have any specific goal. Even self replicating/survival is a consequence of the process not a goal.

You think that since there was a death penalty for homosexuality in the OT, I should embrace that for today. Adultery had the same sentence.

In the scenario we're assuming being set free would mean homelessness.

Do you think this scenario is different than the biblical text in question?

Are you aware that the nations God commanded the Israelites to destroy were set on wiping the Israelites off the face of the earth?

Until you provide a quote, you're just speculating.

And your quote:

"although it may or may not be the case that the political leaders involved actually believed that they were acting in the name of some god(s)."

Yes. And this is no different than committing atrocities for the benefit of the State, just like the communists. If they didn't believe, they couldn't

be acting on behalf of a god.

I'm sorry, I may need clarification here. Are you asking me to provide quotes now?

Denominations who think all other denominations are wrong I would disagree with on that particular note.

Maybe I should clarify.

What they do outside of their job I don't care about. They can be as immoral as they like on their own time. What I meant by them having no related agenda that I would consider immoral, simply means they don't interject their immorality into their work. Like if they tried to close all churches down. I know that's very unlikely, but just using that as an example as extreme as it is.

Whatever reason that person has is their business. It doesn't matter if they vote for religious reasons or not.

Do you believe in religious freedom? Do you believe in a pluralistic society?

When Darwin's Origin Of Species came out, men who were already racist attempted to exploit the theory by claiming white superiority. (Yes, the term is nonsensical as the proponents of white supremacy). Evolution (the theory of) doesn't support racism. Atheism doesn't lead to communism. Men who have racism in their heart, will use whatever means to support their racist sentiment.

Same holds true with the Bible, Christians, religious, etc. They don't support racism, but people who were naturally racist tried to use the bible/Christianity/religion to support

their view. Same exact thing.

From what it sounds like, you feel the bible could make an otherwise moral person immoral. That I might one day, after an evening's reading of scripture, just snap and become racist, a witch hunter, homophobe, etc.

nature vs non nature gods

There are billions of fossils buried in rock layers throughout the world. 

Yes and they are in layers with the old es st rocks containing the oldest fossils and more complex life appearing in younger rocks and younger fossils exactly as we would expect to find if they had been laid down gradually over hundreds of millions of years. You are clearly not a geologist or a paleontologist and it shows. Please if you wish to offer an expert opinion look at the work of actual experts 

Do you think your worldview, devoid of God is more reasonable? 

What is actually more reasonable is to make no claim that is insufficiently demonstrated and to exercise skepticism in the face of claims which are insufficiently demonstrated.

I am not making a positive or negative claim I am merely not prepared to accept yours without far better arguments to support them than I have ever heard in regards t ol any supernatural claim. No god claim has met its burden of proof and many would appear to be logically inconsistent or scientifically inaccurate.

Also evolution is entirely unconnected with the existence or non existence of some god(s). They are entirely separate issues. 

For instance, what other religious view has so much prophecy involved,

We have discussed this before and even if I grant that the bible makes prophecies that are too accurate for any naturalistic explanation like coincidence and the use of Barnum statements you would still have to establish the source of these prophecies and it is as likely to be flying spaghetti monster inspired as god inspired unless there is some way other than the claims of humans to determine the difference between the two possible sources.

And that is only if we accept the false dichotomy of the Yahweh or the pasta monster only.

what is reasonable about such a belief - Pastafarianism? 

Christianity is only more widely accepted not more reasonable.

Reason in a claim is a matter of observably true premises that support the conclusion. If you lack either the same your argument is logically flawed even if you do arrive by chance at the truth.

 I say if it is Pastafariainism it is blind and irrational. 

I agree. Now demonstrate how your religios claims differ in this regard.

Ok well this has become quite the gish gallop Why don't you decide which of these many disparate and unconnected things you actually want to discuss first and we can start there.